Awesome. I didn't want to assume that you'd have time, so I thought
some +1s from the list would show support.
Thanks.
On Jul 15, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Sean Cribbs wrote:
Jim,
I'm working on the core this week so I'll pull in those changes.
Sean
Jim Gay wrote:
I'm eager to see these additions
Jim,
I'm working on the core this week so I'll pull in those changes.
Sean
Jim Gay wrote:
I'm eager to see these additions in the core, but rather than just
bugging them with pull requests would anyone like to give it a +/- 1
for adding in for 0.6.8?
The changes in my repo add:
1) inherit
I'm eager to see these additions in the core, but rather than just
bugging them with pull requests would anyone like to give it a +/- 1
for adding in for 0.6.8?
The changes in my repo add:
1) inherit = "true" to r:if_content and r:unless_content to work just
like the r:content tag.
2) allo
I ended up going with find="any | all" because it just made more sense
when applied to unless_content.
My additions are here:
http://github.com/saturnflyer/radiant/tree
___
Radiant mailing list
Post: Radiant@radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms
On Jul 8, 2008, at 9:08 PM, Chris Parrish wrote:
Jim Gay wrote:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Chris Parrish wrote:
Since the all / find / require_all / inclusive attribute is both
required and boolean (yeah I know XOR's been mentioned but I'm not
going there), why not try to include that co
Jim Gay wrote:
On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Chris Parrish wrote:
Since the all / find / require_all / inclusive attribute is both
required and boolean (yeah I know XOR's been mentioned but I'm not
going there), why not try to include that condition in the rest of it
somehow?
(notice that t
On Jul 8, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Chris Parrish wrote:
Since the all / find / require_all / inclusive attribute is both
required and boolean (yeah I know XOR's been mentioned but I'm not
going there), why not try to include that condition in the rest of
it somehow?
(notice that the name "part
Since the all / find / require_all / inclusive attribute is both
required and boolean (yeah I know XOR's been mentioned but I'm not going
there), why not try to include that condition in the rest of it somehow?
(notice that the name "part" is singular)
So in this example, you'd have 3 diff
On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:43 PM, Tim Gossett wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Sean Cribbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Or I'm thinking that inclusive="true" might be good since we've
got mostly
true/false for extra attributes on r:content
[inclusive="true|false"]>
inclusive="true" being t
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Sean Cribbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Or I'm thinking that inclusive="true" might be good since we've got mostly
>> true/false for extra attributes on r:content
>>
>> > [contextual="true|false"] />
>> > [inclusive="true|false"]>
>> > [inclusive="true|false"]
On Jul 8, 2008, at 2:27 PM, Sean Cribbs wrote:
Or I'm thinking that inclusive="true" might be good since we've got
mostly true/false for extra attributes on r:content
[contextual="true|false"] />
inclusive="true" being the default (meaning AND)
Would either of those be clear to everyone?
Or I'm thinking that inclusive="true" might be good since we've got
mostly true/false for extra attributes on r:content
[contextual="true|false"] />
[inclusive="true|false"]>
[inherit="true|false"] [inclusive="true|false"]>
inclusive="true" being the default (meaning AND)
Would either of
Sean, what do you think?
I think either
#this being the default
Or I'm thinking that inclusive="true" might be good since we've got
mostly true/false for extra attributes on r:content
[inclusive="true|false"]>
inclusive="true" being the default (meaning AND)
Would either of those be
13 matches
Mail list logo
